|
I trust that you all remember this video, in which one fully upgraded Ultralisk kills an absurd amount of Zerglings.
+ Show Spoiler +
When I watched that, it made me wonder how damage is calculated in terms of weapon damage vs. armor. A zergling without upgrades does 5 damage, and the Ultra in that video has 6 armor, and yet it's still taking damage...
Also, I watched an interview from Artosis recently in which he said that he usually gets 2/1 upgrades for his Mutalisks... and I thought of those Zerglings again.
Anyway, I've just done some tests with +1 Mutaliks... here are the results:
with 0 weapon upgrades and no armor on the targets:
1st target takes 9 damage
2nd target takes 3 damage
3rd target takes 1 damage
with +1 upgrade on the Mutas:
1st takes 10
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
with +2
1st takes 11
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
and with +3
1st takes 12
2nd takes 4
3rd takes 2
SO, it seems as if damage is rounded up to the first whole number, and therefore no amount of armor will reduce damage to zero.
Also, it's clear that the first attack upgrade for Mutalisks is definitely the most important, as well at the cheapest, and the fastest.
Finally, if someone could provide me with some numbers on how Guardian Shield works with respect to this I would much appreciate it...
EDIT: Fail embed, srry 
|
Youtube links will auto-embed if you just post the URL.
|
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
|
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice.
|
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
I did, and it simply detracted 1 from the rounded up value every single time. None of the splash from the Muta is ever reduced to 0.
|
On September 14 2010 10:55 Grachuus wrote:
I guess I'm confused why you didn't test this against varying armor values as that seems to be your interest.
Ya, if you made a spreadsheet showing the damage with different upgrades against varying armor values I would love you long time. Then we could see which mutalisk upgrades are most efficient given that ZvZ often times comes down to a mutalisk battle of some sort.
Maybe do some math on corrupters vs mutalisks since they are also a part of that matchup when mutalisks come into the equation.
|
Not 100% related, but am I the only person who thinks it's weird that workers don't get extra damage from attack upgrades?
Not that anybody should be attacking with workers as some sort of DPS force, but because their damage doesn't scale with upgrades, the usefulness of pulling workers to defend in an emergency is less and less as you approach the late game.
I remember HD cast a TvZ recently where at the very end like 5 Marauders killed a Hatchery with 71 Drones on it, and HD commented that if the Zerg player had pulled Drones, he may have won the game.
But in a 3/3 situation, I think 5 Marauders would actually beat 71 Drones.
|
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit
You actually may be right about this... I'm going to do additional testing and edit my OP if it proves that way.
|
I think anything less than armor does 0.5 damage a hit. so 1st does damage, second doesn't third does and so on.
|
There was an old post that sounded authoritative that suggested that .5 was the lowest possible damage in SC2, and all damage below 1 was officially .5 (irregardless of rounding apparently?)
I don't know where the post is or how this can be verified but there it is
|
I've made very extensive testing on this before using corruption and frenzy (while it was in the game) to force weird % of whole damage.
The conclusion was: SC2 works with fractional (non-integer) damage and HP. If your damage is 0.7, then if you repeat it 10 times it deals exactly 7 HP damage. Moreover - the HP showed by a unit is rounded (floored) downwards to the highest integer which is lower or equal to the real HP.
Example1: Battlecruiser taking 0.5 damage shows 549HP, but in fact it really has 549.5 HP.
Example2 (exception): If your unit shows 1HP, it actually has anything in the range 0 < x < 2 (* - see below)
On top of that, there's engine minimum for dealing damage, which is 0.5, so even with the weakest unit vs the highest armor, every hit will deal 0.5 damage. That means, if you ever face a unit with imba high armor, attack it with the fastest attack-rate unit.
+ Show Spoiler [Some of my brief notes during testing] +proof of internal fractional HP: fully upgraded Ultra vs lings. the regeneration is faster if you stop it right after it shows lower HP, instead of the next hit, which still shows the same HP.
sentry (6) vs +3 armor BC (6) - deals 0.5 , but with corruption it deals 6.20% = 1.2 + 0.5 = 1.7 , and indeed after 10 attacks the BC health is 550 - 17 = 533
+1 attack Ghost with Frenzy deals 11+2.75 = 13.75 - 6 = 7.75 and indeed, after 4 attacks the result is 519 = 550 - 31 = 7.75x4
+1 attack Ghost vs Corrupted BC deals 11x0.2 = 2.2 + 11 - 6 = 7.2 , and indeed, after 5 attacks, the result is 514
...etc
(*) similar to the 0.5 damage minimum, there's actually a non-zero HP minimum too, which is also 0.5 . The internal HP does not allow your unit to have 0.2 HP. If after the last attack it has 0 < x < 0.5 , then the engine puts it at 0.5 HP. You can check this with regeneration rates again.
|
On September 14 2010 10:58 TedJustice wrote:
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice.
This is how it worked in BW. I imagine it remained the same in SC2 though I never checked.
Two points of interest:
- Units with double/triple attacks get reduced by armor on each attack. So a Zealot does 14 vs 1 armor and not 15.
- Mutalisks (in BW at least) did 9, 9/3 = 3, 3/3 = 1 damage. With 3attack they did 12, 12/3 = 4, 4/3 = 1.3333 (so first 2-3 attacks would do 1 damage rounded down while they accumulate decimals and then 4th attack would do 2damage).
|
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote:
Great post with proper testing.
Thank you.
That does mean that muta upgrades are all just as important as the value of 4 is in fact 3.33, 3.66 and 4.00. Anyone feel like confirming this?
|
On September 14 2010 11:59 PTZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 10:58 TedJustice wrote:
I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit twice. This is how it worked in BW. I imagine it remained the same in SC2 though I never checked. Two points of interest: - Units with double/triple attacks get reduced by armor on each attack. So a Zealot does 14 vs 1 armor and not 15. - Mutalisks (in BW at least) did 9, 9/3 = 3, 3/3 = 1 damage. With 3attack they did 12, 12/3 = 4, 4/3 = 1.3333 (so first 2-3 attacks would do 1 damage rounded down while they accumulate decimals and then 4th attack would do 2damage).
Interesting.
Can anyone confirm the behaviour of mutalisks in sc2 regarding whether that 1-0 upgrade makes the third glaive constantly do 2 dmg over 1 or just their first attack and then once in a while due to round up.
So far I believe that the 0-1 carapace is still more valuable than the 1-0 attack in muta vs muta fights until someone can confirm whether their dps upgrade of the two bounces are permanently upped by 1 with the 1-0 attack.
|
That's very interesting - it makes it look as though getting +2 attack for Muta isn't too important even if you're going fairly heavy on them.
Are there any tests to see what the effect of Muta upgrades are vs 1 armour, 2 armour, 3 armour, and 4 armour targets are? That's something that'd be very useful to know  .
|
Really, 5 damage against 6 armor is 0.5 damage? I thought it was 1. Something new every day...
|
What I wonder is, are you sure the first upgrade actually does +1/+1/+1 and not +1/+0,66/+0,33 and you simply tested with just the one attack?
Edit: Also, this still doesn't change the fact that once your opponent has +2 armor to their main unit, muta splash is more or less a moot point. Getting the upgrades just for the initial attack is still good if you are a heavy muta user however.
Edit2: Actually, expanding on what figq said, does anyone know about how guardian shield works? Can that spell reduce damage to 0 where armor can only reduce it to .5 or are the mechanics the same?
|
this is pretty cool.
useful just to know how important that +1 attack is above all else, thanks for this
|
I've personally only been getting +1 attack myself also, For no real reason other than the +1 ties with heavy muta play, but doesn't overly commit my spire for upgrades in favor of broodlords. I also told myself that +1 was really good because the third glaive would hugely benefit, and this math proves my theory. Nice to know I was doing it right all along
|
Bit lost
For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded
|
You mean rounded to the nearest Integer.
Zero is a whole number.
|
On September 14 2010 13:25 ktimekiller wrote:
Bit lost
For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded Displayed HP is rounded (down), damage is precise, and internal HP is precise.
|
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote:I've made very extensive testing on this before using corruption and frenzy (while it was in the game) to force weird % of whole damage. The conclusion was: SC2 works with fractional (non-integer) damage and HP. If your damage is 0.7, then if you repeat it 10 times it deals exactly 7 HP damage. Moreover - the HP showed by a unit is rounded (floored) downwards to the highest integer which is lower or equal to the real HP. Example1: Battlecruiser taking 0.5 damage shows 549HP, but in fact it really has 549.5 HP. Example2 (exception): If your unit shows 1HP, it actually has anything in the range 0 < x < 2 (* - see below) On top of that, there's engine minimum for dealing damage, which is 0.5, so even with the weakest unit vs the highest armor, every hit will deal 0.5 damage. That means, if you ever face a unit with imba high armor, attack it with the fastest attack-rate unit. + Show Spoiler [Some of my brief notes during testing] +proof of internal fractional HP: fully upgraded Ultra vs lings. the regeneration is faster if you stop it right after it shows lower HP, instead of the next hit, which still shows the same HP.
sentry (6) vs +3 armor BC (6) - deals 0.5 , but with corruption it deals 6.20% = 1.2 + 0.5 = 1.7 , and indeed after 10 attacks the BC health is 550 - 17 = 533
+1 attack Ghost with Frenzy deals 11+2.75 = 13.75 - 6 = 7.75 and indeed, after 4 attacks the result is 519 = 550 - 31 = 7.75x4
+1 attack Ghost vs Corrupted BC deals 11x0.2 = 2.2 + 11 - 6 = 7.2 , and indeed, after 5 attacks, the result is 514
...etc (*) similar to the 0.5 damage minimum, there's actually a non-zero HP minimum too, which is also 0.5 . The internal HP does not allow your unit to have 0.2 HP. If after the last attack it has 0 < x < 0.5 , then the engine puts it at 0.5 HP. You can check this with regeneration rates again.
OTL
|
On September 14 2010 13:32 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 13:25 ktimekiller wrote:
Bit lost
For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded Displayed HP is rounded (down), damage is precise, and internal HP is precise.
And the minimum damage is apparently .5?
|
On September 14 2010 13:36 ktimekiller wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 13:32 figq wrote:On September 14 2010 13:25 ktimekiller wrote:
Bit lost
For the muta bounce, will the damage be rounded? or will the displayed HP be rounded Displayed HP is rounded (down), damage is precise, and internal HP is precise. And the minimum damage is apparently .5? Yes.
On September 14 2010 13:34 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote:I've made very extensive testing on this before using corruption and frenzy (while it was in the game) to force weird % of whole damage. The conclusion was: SC2 works with fractional (non-integer) damage and HP. If your damage is 0.7, then if you repeat it 10 times it deals exactly 7 HP damage. Moreover - the HP showed by a unit is rounded (floored) downwards to the highest integer which is lower or equal to the real HP. Example1: Battlecruiser taking 0.5 damage shows 549HP, but in fact it really has 549.5 HP. Example2 (exception): If your unit shows 1HP, it actually has anything in the range 0 < x < 2 (* - see below) On top of that, there's engine minimum for dealing damage, which is 0.5, so even with the weakest unit vs the highest armor, every hit will deal 0.5 damage. That means, if you ever face a unit with imba high armor, attack it with the fastest attack-rate unit. + Show Spoiler [Some of my brief notes during testing] +proof of internal fractional HP: fully upgraded Ultra vs lings. the regeneration is faster if you stop it right after it shows lower HP, instead of the next hit, which still shows the same HP.
sentry (6) vs +3 armor BC (6) - deals 0.5 , but with corruption it deals 6.20% = 1.2 + 0.5 = 1.7 , and indeed after 10 attacks the BC health is 550 - 17 = 533
+1 attack Ghost with Frenzy deals 11+2.75 = 13.75 - 6 = 7.75 and indeed, after 4 attacks the result is 519 = 550 - 31 = 7.75x4
+1 attack Ghost vs Corrupted BC deals 11x0.2 = 2.2 + 11 - 6 = 7.2 , and indeed, after 5 attacks, the result is 514
...etc (*) similar to the 0.5 damage minimum, there's actually a non-zero HP minimum too, which is also 0.5 . The internal HP does not allow your unit to have 0.2 HP. If after the last attack it has 0 < x < 0.5 , then the engine puts it at 0.5 HP. You can check this with regeneration rates again. OTL Correct me if something is wrong please, because this testing was done a few months ago, and there could be a mistake.
|
On September 14 2010 13:17 Alsn wrote:
What I wonder is, are you sure the first upgrade actually does +1/+1/+1 and not +1/+0,66/+0,33 and you simply tested with just the one attack?
This is exactly what I was wondering about, just that he stated it better.
This is a pretty important kind of information to find out.
In case someone figures out that it is a constant +1/+1/+1 - it will be a huge discovery.
|
minimum damage is 0.5. it's a value in the data editor.
mutalisk bounce also sucks imo with weapon upgrades
2nd bounce gets 0.6666 dmg instead of 1
3rd bounce gets 0.3333 dmg instead of 1.
|
If the bounce does 2/3 of the damage (and the second bounce 1/3) which I'm told here is true, then in muta vs muta fights, the armor upgrade is better.
Attack upgrade gives +1 + 2/3 + 1/3 damage per shot (+2)
Armor upgrade gives -1 - 1 - .5 (at worst) per enemy shot (-2.5)
Easy example, if you get armor and your opponent gets attack:
their Mutas do 9 + 2.66 + .5 = 12.16 per shot
yours do 9 + 3 + 1 = 13 per shot
Of course, against non-mutas, you'd probably rather have attack. (And other units against your mutas would probably like to have armor.)
|
I think picking armor is definitely a must against Terrans
Considering the low damage per shot, but frequent hits from Terran AA, the +1 armor would be far more valuable than damage.
I am leaning towards +1 damage against Protoss because of Guardian shield and the lack of fast but low damage hits that will ward Mutalisks away.
|
On September 14 2010 13:17 Alsn wrote:
Edit2: Actually, expanding on what figq said, does anyone know about how guardian shield works? Can that spell reduce damage to 0 where armor can only reduce it to .5 or are the mechanics the same? The 0.5 correction is applied last of all calculations, to prevent the situation of unit attacking and dealing 0 damage. (Blizzard doesn't like it apparently ^^) So under GS you still take at least the minimum damage in all attack-defense matchups.
On September 14 2010 13:53 MavercK wrote:
mutalisk bounce also sucks imo with weapon upgrades
2nd bounce gets 0.6666 dmg instead of 1
3rd bounce gets 0.3333 dmg instead of 1. Otherwise the upgrades would benefit the bounces more than the main attack (in % of increase), which would be unreasonable.
|
As far as I can tell so far, no one's seems to have tested it yet. Well since it seems no one else wants to spend 5 minutes to test the upgrade, I guess I will.
And why are people suggesting it upgrades at +1 +.66 and +.33? fail at math, or another reason?
It should be +1 +.33 +.11 if it follows the attack.
Edit:
OK I tested it.
The +1 attack upgrades +1, +.33 and +.11 as one would expect. It's only the first shot (then alternating every 3 or 9 times) that "deals" extra damage.
Makes me glad whenever I went mutas I wasn't ever getting the attack instead of armor.
|
|
|
On September 14 2010 14:42 Barrin wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how the extra armor is calculated in SC2, but in SC1 it was more complicated than just rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a unit had 255 armor and a unit attacking it only did 1 damage, then that unit attacking it would have to hit it several times before 1 damage was dealt. I am 100% sure on this btw.
Yeah I'm pretty sure of that too. SC1's was weird, not sure exactly how it worked.
When it comes to SC2thoguh, as people mentioned, I think it's minimum 0.5 damage. Someone even said this is an attribute configurable in the editor, so that's as much proof as anyone would need to be certain that it's true.
|
On September 14 2010 14:42 Barrin wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how the extra armor is calculated in SC2, but in SC1 it was more complicated than just rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a unit had 255 armor and a unit attacking it only did 1 damage, then that unit attacking it would have to hit it several times before 1 damage was dealt. I am 100% sure on this btw. I know, that's why I did those tests, to confirm or disprove that this works similarly in SC2 - and in SC2 it is with fractional internal HP instead. I read people claiming every second ling attack deals 1 whole damage - that is not true in SC2.
My guess about BW is that they optimized the engine by using integers, so they used a formula to solve any rational number equation and deal 1 whole damage on every n hits (with some incrementor). In SC2 they don't care about such petty optimizations anymore so it lags like hell even in official casts. The main positive of upgrading to true fractional is that it makes balancing and tweaking a lot easier, and especially for such large set of single player campaigns/missions.
|
On September 14 2010 11:55 figq wrote:I've made very extensive testing on this before using corruption and frenzy (while it was in the game) to force weird % of whole damage. The conclusion was: SC2 works with fractional (non-integer) damage and HP. If your damage is 0.7, then if you repeat it 10 times it deals exactly 7 HP damage. Moreover - the HP showed by a unit is rounded (floored) downwards to the highest integer which is lower or equal to the real HP. Example1: Battlecruiser taking 0.5 damage shows 549HP, but in fact it really has 549.5 HP. Example2 (exception): If your unit shows 1HP, it actually has anything in the range 0 < x < 2 (* - see below) On top of that, there's engine minimum for dealing damage, which is 0.5, so even with the weakest unit vs the highest armor, every hit will deal 0.5 damage. That means, if you ever face a unit with imba high armor, attack it with the fastest attack-rate unit. + Show Spoiler [Some of my brief notes during testing] +proof of internal fractional HP: fully upgraded Ultra vs lings. the regeneration is faster if you stop it right after it shows lower HP, instead of the next hit, which still shows the same HP.
sentry (6) vs +3 armor BC (6) - deals 0.5 , but with corruption it deals 6.20% = 1.2 + 0.5 = 1.7 , and indeed after 10 attacks the BC health is 550 - 17 = 533
+1 attack Ghost with Frenzy deals 11+2.75 = 13.75 - 6 = 7.75 and indeed, after 4 attacks the result is 519 = 550 - 31 = 7.75x4
+1 attack Ghost vs Corrupted BC deals 11x0.2 = 2.2 + 11 - 6 = 7.2 , and indeed, after 5 attacks, the result is 514
...etc (*) similar to the 0.5 damage minimum, there's actually a non-zero HP minimum too, which is also 0.5 . The internal HP does not allow your unit to have 0.2 HP. If after the last attack it has 0 < x < 0.5 , then the engine puts it at 0.5 HP. You can check this with regeneration rates again.
Yea that seems to make sense on how intricate blizzard is; it would be alot easier on the eyes to see whole numbers instead of day9 screaming that he got away with 2.756 health
|
|
|
Getting +2 attack for mutalisks makes a lot of sense, especially since Terrans and Protoss tend to upgrade attack, and not armor against zerg.
+1 is great since it gives the bonus bounce damage against units such as marines, sentries, hellions, etc. However, against units with base +1 armor, it will NOT give that bonus bounce damage.
Marauders, zealots, stalkers, and many other units have +1 armor already...thus, to get the mutalisk bounce bonus damage against them, you would need...thats right...+2 attack.
|
Check for the HP after several hits. I'm pretty sure the rounding is only nominal, and the system internally calculates the fraction HP -- this is how it was in BW.
|
Are the glaive bounces each 1/3 of the previous stage's damage vs. unarmored, or the damage it actually dealt in practice?
If a 9-3-1 mutalisk fires at a 100 armor target and it bounces to a 0 armor target, does the secondary target take 3 damage or 0.5?
|
On September 14 2010 16:46 EggPuppet wrote:
Are the glaive bounces each 1/3 of the previous stage's damage vs. unarmored, or the damage it actually dealt in practice?
If a 9-3-1 mutalisk fires at a 100 armor target and it bounces to a 0 armor target, does the secondary target take 3 damage or 0.5?
3
|
On September 14 2010 14:35 Xapti wrote:And why are people suggesting it upgrades at +1 +.66 and +.33? fail at math, or another reason?
It should be +1 +.33 +.11 if it follows the attack.. You are correct, of course. No idea why I thought it would be 2/3 and 1/3 for the second and third attack. Just didn't think it through I suppose. >.<
|
Sweet, will be getting attack upgrade for my mutas always now. Essentially +3 damage is very worth it.
|
That Youtube video is from the beginning of the Beta. 1 Ultra cannot kill that many Zerglings anymore. Not even close I believe.
|
On September 14 2010 11:13 ghettohobbit2 wrote:Show nested quote +I always thought it would do fractional damage. You could do half a damage and it wouldn't go down by 1 until it was hit You actually may be right about this... I'm going to do additional testing and edit my OP if it proves that way.
That was how it worked in bw, if something was going to do 0 damage because of armor, it would just do half a damage point instead.
|
United States12240 Posts
On September 14 2010 14:50 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 14:42 Barrin wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how the extra armor is calculated in SC2, but in SC1 it was more complicated than just rounded up to the nearest whole number. If a unit had 255 armor and a unit attacking it only did 1 damage, then that unit attacking it would have to hit it several times before 1 damage was dealt. I am 100% sure on this btw. I know, that's why I did those tests, to confirm or disprove that this works similarly in SC2 - and in SC2 it is with fractional internal HP instead. I read people claiming every second ling attack deals 1 whole damage - that is not true in SC2. My guess about BW is that they optimized the engine by using integers, so they used a formula to solve any rational number equation and deal 1 whole damage on every n hits (with some incrementor). In SC2 they don't care about such petty optimizations anymore so it lags like hell even in official casts. The main positive of upgrading to true fractional is that it makes balancing and tweaking a lot easier, and especially for such large set of single player campaigns/missions.
I'm surprised lololol hasn't appeared in this thread yet, this is totally his department. BW calculated damage down to the 1/256. I believe he said that the minimum damage was 127/256 (or very very shy of 0.5). Wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were the same in SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
